Talk:Duchy of Parma and Piacenza

Former countries: Italian historical states

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by the Italian historical states task force.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Edits[edit]

My edits merely organized the information given in this and related articles, so reverting them (without any proper reasoning) is certainly out of line.

The one exception is the issue whether Ferdinand was to give up the duchy formally (de facto it was occupied already since 1796) in 1801, when his son became King of Etruria, or remained de jure duke until his death a year later.

I do not the answer to that question and invite others to fill in this gap. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits had no explanation, not even an edit summary. Essentially, you're editing and saying to other editors: "Check to see what I've done for yourselves, because I can't be bothered (don't have the simple good manners) to tell you." I've explained to you that Wikipedia requests the use of edit summaries, and your response was to blank my comment with an uncivil edit summary. If you continue to refuse to do other editors the courtesy of using summaries, don't be surprised if your edits are reverted more often. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you are reverting not because you think his changes are wrong, but only because he is not leaving an edit summary? This is ridiculous. john k 16:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the template concerning edit summaries says:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. [...]

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Without an edit summary, it's often difficult for other editors to know why what was done was done; when no source is given, things are hopeless.

For someone who seems to know little about the way Wikipedia works, and who has jumped into the middle of a discussion, you are remarkably certain of your opinion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an asshole. Seriously. I've been here for three years. I know edit summaries are encouraged. But I've never heard that it is encouraged that we revert articles simply because no edit summary is provided. That's ridiculous. john k 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]